How powerful are skills?

[fireinthedust]

How powerful are skills in your game? Specifically, how well do they affect play vs. Class abilities OR magic items?

I'm trying to think of the difference between different character classes, and whether a skill monkey is really a game changer build.

I suppose this would involve whether a game focuses on combat, roleplay encounters, or skill challenges.

Would having any class be able to use any skill be that much of a game changer? Would higher or lower numbers of skills matter?

 

[Umbran]

I expect this is going to be system-dependent.

For example, I'm running classic Deadlands these days. There's no such thing as a class, or class power, in this system, and magic items are scarcer'n hen's teeth. Skills are pretty much everything.

In D&D, I expect you'll see differences between 3e and 4e as well in this regard. If you want to focus on a specific system, let me know and I'll slide the thread to teh appropriate forum.

 

[Ahnehnois]

With respect to 3.5 D&D:

I find that skill rolls are usually the most frequent use of dice during a session. The stealth/perception skills frequently establish the conditions of combat (or they decide whether there is a combat). Knowledge and information gathering skills are primary drivers of plot. The way one of my games plays out is greatly influenced by my players' choice of knowledge skills. Charisma skills are somewaht optional, but characters that are good at them can change the game. Physical skills are sometimes usurped by magic but still come in to play with some frequency and can determine who lives or dies. I've found a modest decrease in the impact of skills at high levels as relative to magic, but many are still useful into epic, IME. Magic tends to be situational, and people forget magic item effects. Rogues have generally been very powerful in my games.

Skills are also one of the most important ways of developing character; creating a background is largely about explaining where your skill ranks come from.

Skills are important.


With respect to CoC d20:

When I take a break from D&D to run a combat-lite game like this, skills are the primary mechanical attribute of a character and having a broad variety is the definition of "power" (inasmuch as such a concept exists in this sort of game).

...

Would having any class be able to use any skill be that much of a game changer? Would higher or lower numbers of skills matter?

No and yes. Having any class being able to use any skills is not a huge deal because of the economy of actions and the economy of skill points. Equalizing the number of skill points would, however, destroy the utility of the rogue, ranger, and a number of other classes for whom the skill point totals are a significant class feature.

 

[MortalPlague]

It certainly depends on the game system, but it also depends on the themes and setting of the game. Urban adventures, for instance, rely much more on skills than a dungeon crawl.

 

[Mort]

How powerful are skills in your game? Specifically, how well do they affect play vs. Class abilities OR magic items?

In 3e (and now 4e), as levels increase, I tend to give skills more and more power relative to class abilities and or magic items. I like a mythic feel to my games, especially as characters attain high level. From previous threads on this, I don't think I'm in the majority though (or maybe it's just a vocal minority of people who like skills fully grounded in reality).

I'm trying to think of the difference between different character classes, and whether a skill monkey is really a game changer build.

In 3e, I would argue it's tough to make a skill monkey as a viable build past even mid levels much less a game changing build.

I suppose this would involve whether a game focuses on combat, roleplay encounters, or skill challenges.

In my 4e game the bard has a pretty good skill selection, and while he helps at skill challenges, it's hardly game breaking. Then again I have yet to see a build actually optimized for this, I suspect I wouldn't have much of a problem with it though.

Would having any class be able to use any skill be that much of a game changer? Would higher or lower numbers of skills matter?

In my previous 3e/3.5 game I did just this (game ran from 1st into epic levels) players appreciated the added versatility and there were no problems at all from any balance/game breaking sense.

 

[RedTonic]

I put a lot of weight on skills and utility magic, because I prefer to run games heavy in exploration and interaction (besides cleaving and burning types of "getting to know you"). I haven't had any issues with game-breaking from classes that have a heavier weight on skills (bards, rogues, wizards), though I have had mechanical issues stemming from magical items which enhance important skills. Enforcing certain consequences for their flagrant use helps curb excess. (It only takes being robbed once for PCs to become more circumspect, in my experience.)

 

[fireinthedust]

Umbran: thanks for the kind offer, but I'm thinking pan-system on this one. Pan d20 at the very least, be that 3e or 4e, or even earlier versions of the game.

Speaking of which, ability checks managed most of the skill rolling in early editions, with minor help from non-weapon proficiencies. There were gaps (ie: only Thieves could climb walls) mechanically, but in a fast-and-loose game, the idea of skills was much more abstract.


Any class any skill: what about builds like a stealth fighter, or stealth mage, taking over the roles of other classes? Would a stealth mage be broken? Or a Stealthy fighter (albeit with armor check penalties aplenty)?

In True20 I'm thinking that the skills are a bigger deal, if only because there aren't many other features to the game. Skills there are basically everything.

4e: I don't remember my 4e game having issues with it. They were more to decide things, like whether someone knows something, or could guess something else. Skill challenges, basically. Good, for what it's worth, but not making a big impact in combat situations. 4e took work to make it not be a combat engine (which it is, with simple rules for negotiating other situations), and with no save-or-die spells or attacks there isn't as much of an issue with hitting a monster from stealth like there would be in a game without so many hit points.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Would having any class be able to use any skill be that much of a game changer? Would higher or lower numbers of skills matter?

Allowing any class to use any skill is fine, assuming that all skills are lent equal weight, which is more or less a DM thing.

Having higher or lower numbers of skills doesn't matter if:

*everyone has (roughly) the same quantity of skills
I think that how heavily D&D has tied skill quantity to class is a terrible thing because it tends to produce a big imbalance between who can contribute outside of combat. All of the last three D&D fighters I've seen played (one 3.5, two in 4e) have felt at least slightly put out by their inability to contribute to non-combat situations.

*it's possible to get the minimum number of skills needed to be competent at the setting's appropriate archetypes
For instance, I would consider the knowledgable sage to be a staple of fantasy fiction. I would therefore expect there to be a way to create such a sage in-game. To that end, if players get 4-6 skills, I would expect there to be at most 7 discrete knowledge skills in the game, and more likely only 4 or 5. I consider a heroic athlete to be another staple - if the game has swimming, climbing, running and jumping as seperate skills, a fighter had damn well better get at least 4 skills.

*it's not possible to get every skill in the game (at least not without a massive investment)
If it's relatively easy for any character to get every skill in the game to a high degree of competency, then you may as well do away with the skill mechanic entirely and just let everyone try everything with a flat roll.